Prevalence and Causes of Diagnostic Errors in Hospitalized Patients Under Investigation for COVID-19.

BACKGROUND: The COVID-19 pandemic required clinicians to care for a disease with evolving characteristics while also adhering to care changes (e.g., physical distancing practices) that might lead to diagnostic errors (DEs). OBJECTIVE: To determine the frequency of DEs and their causes among patients hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19. DESIGN: Retrospective cohort. SETTING: Eight medical centers affiliated with the Hospital Medicine ReEngineering Network (HOMERuN). TARGET POPULATION: Adults hospitalized under investigation (PUI) for COVID-19 infection between February and July 2020. MEASUREMENTS: We randomly selected up to 8 cases per site per month for review, with each case reviewed by two clinicians to determine whether a DE (defined as a missed or delayed diagnosis) occurred, and whether any diagnostic process faults took place. We used bivariable statistics to compare patients with and without DE and multivariable models to determine which process faults or patient factors were associated with DEs. RESULTS: Two hundred and fifty-seven patient charts underwent review, of which 36 (14%) had a diagnostic error. Patients with and without DE were statistically similar in terms of socioeconomic factors, comorbidities, risk factors for COVID-19, and COVID-19 test turnaround time and eventual positivity. Most common diagnostic process faults contributing to DE were problems with clinical assessment, testing choices, history taking, and physical examination (all p < 0.01). Diagnostic process faults associated with policies and procedures related to COVID-19 were not associated with DE risk. Fourteen patients (35.9% of patients with errors and 5.4% overall) suffered harm or death due to diagnostic error. LIMITATIONS: Results are limited by available documentation and do not capture communication between providers and patients. CONCLUSION: Among PUI patients, DEs were common and not associated with pandemic-related care changes, suggesting the importance of more general diagnostic process gaps in error propagation.

How team clinical reasoning occurs on ward rounds: Implications for learning.

BACKGROUND: Ward rounds offer a rich environment for learning about team clinical reasoning. We aimed to assess how team clinical reasoning occurs on ward rounds to inform efforts to enhance the teaching of clinical reasoning. METHODS: We performed focused ethnography of ward rounds over a 6-week period, during which we observed five different teams. Each day team comprised one senior physician, one senior resident, one junior resident, two interns and one medical student. Twelve 'night-float' residents who discussed new patients with the day team were also included. Field notes were analysed using content analysis. FINDINGS: We analysed 41 new patient presentations and discussions on 23 different ward rounds. The median duration of case presentations and discussions was 13.0 minutes (IQR, 10.0-18.0 minutes). More time was devoted to information sharing (median 5.5 minutes; IQR, 4.0-7.0 minutes) than any other activity, followed by discussion of management plans (median 4.0 minutes; IQR, 3.0-7.8 minutes). Nineteen (46%) cases did not include discussion of a differential diagnosis for the chief concern. We identified two themes relevant to learning: (1) linear versus iterative approaches to team-based diagnosis and (2) the influence of hierarchy on participation in clinical reasoning discussions. CONCLUSION: The ward teams we observed spent far less time discussing differential diagnoses compared with information sharing. Junior learners such as medical students and interns contributed less frequently to team clinical reasoning discussions. In order to maximise student learning, strategies to engage junior learners in team clinical reasoning discussions on ward rounds may be needed.

COVID-19-Related Circumstances for Hospital Readmissions: A Case Series From 2 New York City Hospitals.

OBJECTIVE: The aim of the study was to determine the main factors contributing to hospital readmissions and their potential preventability after a coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) hospitalization at 2 New York City hospitals. METHODS: This was a retrospective study at 2 affiliated New York City hospitals located in the Upper East Side and Lower Manhattan neighborhoods. We performed case reviews using the Hospital Medicine Reengineering Network framework to determine potentially preventable readmissions among patients hospitalized for COVID-19 between March 3, 2020 (date of first case) and April 27, 2020, and readmitted to either of the 2 hospitals within 30 days of discharge. RESULTS: Among 53 readmissions after hospitalization for COVID-19, 44 (83%) were deemed not preventable and 9 (17%) were potentially preventable. Nonpreventable readmissions were mostly due to disease progression or complications of COVID-19 (37/44, 84%). Main factors contributing to potentially preventable readmissions were issues with initial disposition (5/9, 56%), premature discharge (3/9, 33%), and inappropriate readmission (1/9, 11%) for someone who likely did not require rehospitalization. CONCLUSIONS: Most readmissions after a COVID-19 hospitalization were not preventable and a consequence of the natural progression of the disease, specifically worsening dyspnea or hypoxemia. Some readmissions were potentially preventable, mostly because of issues with disposition that were directly related to challenges posed by the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic. Clinicians should be aware of challenges with disposition related to circumstances of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Nephritic Syndrome.

Nephritic syndrome is a constellation of hematuria, proteinuria, hypertension, and in some cases acute kidney injury and fluid retention characteristic of acute glomerulonephritis. Infection-related glomerulonephritis, IgA nephropathy, lupus nephritis, membranoproliferative glomerulonephritis, and antineutrophil cytoplasmic antibody-associated vasculitis are the most common diseases in nephritic syndrome that primary care physicians might encounter in practice such that a solid comprehension of these can lead to earlier detection. This article describes the pathophysiology, incidence, clinical presentation, treatment, and disease progression of these nephritic syndrome entities, and provides guidance for when to refer to a nephrologist.

Cardiorenal status using amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide and cystatin C on cardiac resynchronization therapy outcomes: From the BIOCRT Study.

BACKGROUND: Cardiorenal syndrome comprises a heterogeneous group of disorders characterized by acute or chronic cardiac and renal dysfunction. OBJECTIVE: The purpose of this study was to determine the effect of cardiorenal status using a dual-marker strategy with amino-terminal pro-brain natriuretic peptide (NT-proBNP) and cystatin C on cardiac resynchronization therapy (CRT) outcomes. METHODS: In 92 patients (age 66 ± 13 years; 80% male; left ventricular ejection fraction 26% ± 7%), NT-proBNP and cystatin C levels were measured at CRT implantation and at 1 month. NT-proBNP >1000 pg/mL and cystatin C >1 mg/L were considered high. Baseline cardiorenal patients were defined as having high NT-proBNP and cystatin C. At 1 month, CRT patients were categorized as (1) irreversible cardiorenal if cystatin C was persistently high; (2) progressive cardiorenal with transition from low to high cystatin C; (3) reversible cardiorenal with transition from high to low cystatin C; and (4) "normal" with stable low cystatin C. Outcomes were 6-month clinical and echocardiographic CRT response and 2 -year major adverse cardiovascular event (MACE). RESULTS: Compared to patients with low NT-proBNP and cystatin C, cardiorenal patients had >9-fold increase risk of CRT nonresponse (odds ratio uncompensated 9.0; compensated 36.4; both P ≤.004) and >6-fold risk of MACE (hazard ratio uncompensated 8.5; P = .005). Compared to "normal" and reversible patients (referent), irreversible patients had a 9-fold increase for CRT nonresponse (odds ratio 9.1; P <.001) and had >4-fold risk of MACE (adjusted hazard ratio 5.1; P <.001). Irreversible patients were most likely echocardiographic CRT nonresponders. CONCLUSION: Cardiorenal status by NT-proBNP and cystatin C can identify high-risk CRT patients, and those with both elevated concentrations have worse prognosis.